consilience2 wrote:We do need to plan for the future because infrastructure decisions are long term capital investments that last for many decades. Those discussions must differentiate between what is good for big business and what is good for people because the two are not the same.

For example 30 years ago energy efficiency in houses and cars was started but had little follow through. If a house had been built with efficiency and solar heating in mind there would have been at least a 30% drop in utility costs(I know people who have 0). These things require a few percent upfront costs with long term savings. The shills for the fossil fuel industry would argue it is better to buy the $195,000 house and pay $200/month in utilities rather than buy the $200,000 house and pay $100/month in utilities. Which is really better for the people?

You simply do not know what you are talking about. I have been in the building industry for over thirty years. Every evolution of product has been about energy or the environment. The push for more energy efficient homes and building systems has been driven by the consumer. There are people that can afford solar, even though most of the solar systems will not pay for themselves. God bless them if they can afford it. People like you talk out both sides of your mouth. Next thing you will be complaining about is the greedy builders not providing affordable housing, even though the requirements that you would like to impose make it unaffordable. Liberals just don't get it.

Show me all the houses that are using solar to their advantage. A little extra capital upfront does not make a house too expense when it saves money throughout its lifetime.Good explanation of why we have made little progress: assume it cannot be done because it must be a liberal idea and they are stupid.Based on a system that has been working for thirty years with a 20-30% savings on heating costs using measurements before and after and one time when a fan went out these systems work well and are not expensive.If the installation is part of the original build the cost of solar heating is not great.

I do not think my cost estimates are too far off:Cost of an architect to draw up solar design vs standard $0 Cost to orient house at solar positive angle $0Cost for storage box $500Cost for extra duct work, fan and baffles $1000Cost for extra insulation, 3 pane window with IR during installation $1500Cost for heat panels displacing shingles $2000

There is a difference between ignorance and innovation.

Offhand, I'd like to see the basis of your cost estimates and how you come to derive them.

To me they seem way off, understated by a rather large amount.

"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." (Barack Obama August 21, 2010)

indubitablysnarky wrote:No wonder these Warmal Colding alarmists are doubling down on their lunacy.

The latest poll reveals only one third of Americans show any real concern-

LOL. So, do the collective wishes of a population change reality?

Talk about argument ad populum.

Oh, so now "collective wishes of a population" dont matter?

No, the beliefs of the general population do not matter. Not when it comes to facts. It doesn't matter if 100% of the (lay) population doesn't "believe" in global warming. It won't change reality.

All polls like that really demonstrate is that the denialist efforts at propaganda via massive spending (on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe more in dark money) on disinformation campaigns is working, that's all.

A great deal of the population thinks the Sun goes around the Earth, too. So what? If a majority of the population believes that, will it become true?

When Obama was reelected with just over 51% of the vote you and all your buddies proclaimed "the country has spoken and you lost- get over it".

Well now the most recent national poll on climate change shows a whopping 2/3rds of the country arent buying your bogus alarmism.

So you overwhelmingly lose Charles,

Isnt it about time you GET OVER IT?

You seriously cannot tell the difference between elections and science giving us information about the reality we live in?

Sid wrote:Offhand, I'd like to see the basis of your cost estimates and how you come to derive them.

To me they seem way off, understated by a rather large amount.

I will give you a parts list based on the 30 year old system I have.This is for an air system on a house that was constructed to receive it. That is the roof will be at the right slope. The collection area is 32 ft. by 8 ft. This is area that does not need to be cover in shingles so subtract that cost. Note these are retail prices so contractors should be able to do much better.Collector20 3x 8 metal panels one set black to absorb another set silver to reflect any heat from roof structure $400Plexiglas covers $400Framing, insulation, mounting hardware and labor $1200

indubitablysnarky wrote:No wonder these Warmal Colding alarmists are doubling down on their lunacy.

The latest poll reveals only one third of Americans show any real concern-

LOL. So, do the collective wishes of a population change reality?

Talk about argument ad populum.

Oh, so now "collective wishes of a population" dont matter?

No, the beliefs of the general population do not matter. Not when it comes to facts. It doesn't matter if 100% of the (lay) population doesn't "believe" in global warming.

Ah, but the beliefs of the population do affect US govt policy, and that's ultimately what the issue is here.

BTW, while it may be a fact that more man-made pollution in the atmosphere has *some* effect on temperatures, it's far from "fact" that scientists agree on how much. Estimates are all over the map on that one, including quite a few on the low side which suggests it's NOT worth damaging our economy to try and change.

Udall vs Gardner isn't really about Udall or Gardner.

It's about HARRY REID, and whether he gets to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. Do you like the job he's done making Congress function for the last 8 years? Yes? No?

indubitablysnarky wrote:No wonder these Warmal Colding alarmists are doubling down on their lunacy.

The latest poll reveals only one third of Americans show any real concern-

LOL. So, do the collective wishes of a population change reality?

Talk about argument ad populum.

Oh, so now "collective wishes of a population" dont matter?

No, the beliefs of the general population do not matter. Not when it comes to facts. It doesn't matter if 100% of the (lay) population doesn't "believe" in global warming.

Ah, but the beliefs of the population do affect US govt policy, and that's ultimately what the issue is here.

BTW, while it may be a fact that more man-made pollution in the atmosphere has *some* effect on temperatures, it's far from "fact" that scientists agree on how much. Estimates are all over the map on that one, including quite a few on the low side which suggests it's NOT worth damaging our economy to try and change.

You are right that the belief of the population does affect government policy so a well-educated public is important. I am concerned that our school systems do not produce enough people who can understand problems well.

One issue is the use of the answer to a deceptive question to draw incorrect conclusions. If I was asked if I will see serious consequences of global warming in my lifetime I would honestly answer probably not (e.g. I do not believe that the ocean will rush into the Arkansas valley).Other questions would have different answers.Have I seen noticeable warming in my lifetime? YesDoes this warming inconvenience me? Yes Things like not getting peaches every year and the night is not cooling off as much so air conditioning may need to be used.The larger question of which warming is a subset: Do man made environmental changes have potential serious consequences? Definitely yes.The question that I think many posters have wrong is what has caused and will cause the greatest harm to our economy: action on environmental issues or inaction on environmental issues? I believe that inaction is the greatest threat particularly when it comes to energy issues.

indubitablysnarky wrote:No wonder these Warmal Colding alarmists are doubling down on their lunacy.

The latest poll reveals only one third of Americans show any real concern-

LOL. So, do the collective wishes of a population change reality?

Talk about argument ad populum.

Oh, so now "collective wishes of a population" dont matter?

No, the beliefs of the general population do not matter. Not when it comes to facts. It doesn't matter if 100% of the (lay) population doesn't "believe" in global warming.

Ah, but the beliefs of the population do affect US govt policy, and that's ultimately what the issue is here.

BTW, while it may be a fact that more man-made pollution in the atmosphere has *some* effect on temperatures, it's far from "fact" that scientists agree on how much. Estimates are all over the map on that one, including quite a few on the low side which suggests it's NOT worth damaging our economy to try and change.

You are right that the belief of the population does affect government policy so a well-educated public is important. I am concerned that our school systems do not produce enough people who can understand problems well.

One issue is the use of the answer to a deceptive question to draw incorrect conclusions. If I was asked if I will see serious consequences of global warming in my lifetime I would honestly answer probably not (e.g. I do not believe that the ocean will rush into the Arkansas valley).Other questions would have different answers.Have I seen noticeable warming in my lifetime? YesDoes this warming inconvenience me? Yes Things like not getting peaches every year and the night is not cooling off as much so air conditioning may need to be used.The larger question of which warming is a subset: Do man made environmental changes have potential serious consequences? Definitely yes.The question that I think many posters have wrong is what has caused and will cause the greatest harm to our economy: action on environmental issues or inaction on environmental issues? I believe that inaction is the greatest threat particularly when it comes to energy issues.

I think the greatest harm to the economy is bad govt policy getting in the way. There's been a lot of that, especially lately. I forget that exact number, but I read somewhere that the number of pages of federal regulation has like tripled or something in the last 8 years alone.

I would modify your "well-educated public" slightly and say what we really need is a more well-INFORMED voting public. Education can be great, but our education system can also be part of the problem as there's quite a bit of bias and spin in the school systems too. It can take years of real life experience to reverse some of the bad impressions taught in schools, especially on economic matters. It always amazes me how clueless so many young people tend to be regarding economic matters.

Udall vs Gardner isn't really about Udall or Gardner.

It's about HARRY REID, and whether he gets to keep his job as Senate Majority Leader. Do you like the job he's done making Congress function for the last 8 years? Yes? No?

all American wrote:Good bye affordable energy use. The Progressive Socialists are coming to control even more of your life. This just more garbage from the lying control freaks who want to knock the sheep back to the stone age...

You just want your brand of lying control freaks to knock the sheep back to the stone age...

Infringing women's reproductive rights?

Banning gay marriage?

Imprisoning citizens for using MJ?

Do go on about who the control freaks are.

Don't forget that your Progressive Socialist buddies will eventually go after controlling everything. Are you sure that the Progressives are supporting freedom or are they conquering us all by dividing us from within???

dbsb3233 wrote:It can take years of real life experience to reverse some of the bad impressions taught in schools, especially on economic matters. It always amazes me how clueless so many young people tend to be regarding economic matters.

swatson: Infringing women's reproductive rights?Who is wanting to infringe on women's reproductive rights? As a conservative I dont want to infringe on any womans right to reproduce. I just dont want her killing her kid during the final days of pregnancy. She has a lot of options and she should use them.

Typical Authoritarian response. You know what's best for addled women and want the state to regulate them.

So I guess according to your response it is ok to cave your 2 year old's skull in with a baseball bat or for that matter grandpa both can get mighty inconvenient sometimes. To oppose such action would be mighty authoritarian?

swatson: Banning gay marriage?Nothing new here. Gay marriage has been banned for centuries in most cultures across the globe. Those who didnt ban it didnt last long for some reason.

Correct. There is nothing new about Authoritarians. They are morally superior and have a duty to restrict the rights of a group of citizens because we know what's best for society.

And once again it would be mighty authoritarian for the state to prevent some guy from marrying 5 to 15 women? How about marrying his sister?

swatson :Imprisoning citizens for using MJ?Agreed. You should have the right to eat, drink, or smoke anything you want.

2 out of three, good for you! You're slightly less of an Authoritarian-control-freak than "all American".